Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 11-17 -----____--C. Gi -_ Report to Planning & Development Committee DICKERING Report Number: PLN 11-17 Date: June 5, 2017 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application - Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan - File: OPA 17-001/P Recommendation: 1 . That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 17-001/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to remove the density cap for the City Centre, within Table 6 of the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Exhibit "A" to Appendix Ito Report PLN 11-17, be approved; and 2. That the Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan, to remove the density cap for the City Centre, within Table 6 of the Pickering Official Plan, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 11-17, be forwarded to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: Following the endorsement of a new City Centre Zoning By-law in January 2017, concerns were expressed by some landowners that, in certain instances, a development proposal would meet the Floor Space Index and height requirements of the zoning by-law, but would not meet the density requirements of the Pickering Official Plan. As a result, City Staff initiated Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan to remove the density cap for the City Centre area. The removal of the cap will provide further opportunities for intensification, allowing for a greater number of units to be achieved within the same building envelope. The removal of the cap will also allow developers within the City Centre greater flexibility to provide a variety of residential unit sizes, while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure, and market demand. Further, removal of the cap will facilitate the ability of the City and other public agencies to acquire land for community and public purposes. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed Amendment. PLN 11-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) Page 2 1. Background The Pickering City Centre corresponds to the Downtown Pickering Urban Growth Centre, designated in the Provincial Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The area of the City Centre is bounded by Bayly Street to the south, the hydro corridor to the east, the limits of properties fronting onto Kingston Road to the north, and Pine Creek and Liverpool Road to the west. The Provincial Growth Plan stipulates that the City Centre is to: • be a focal area for investment in institutional and region-wide public services, as well as commercial, recreational, cultural and entertainment uses; • accommodate and support major transit infrastructure; • serve as high density major employment centres that will attract provincially, nationally or internationally significant employment uses; and • accommodate 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. To meet these Provincial Growth Plan directions, the City has: developed a Vision for the City Centre; approved new Official Plan policies and designations; adopted urban design guidelines; and, approved a new comprehensive zoning by-law. 1.1 Development of a Vision for the City Centre In 2013, the City endorsed "Downtown Pickering: A Vision for Intensification and a Framework for Investment". The vision for the City Centre (Downtown Pickering) expressed that: "Downtown Pickering will be a vibrant, sustainable, accessible and distinct city centre for all people and all seasons. It will be a place to inspire, a place to gather, a place to work, and a place to live, all in a compact and walkable environment." More specifically, the following features were considered key elements of the built form vision for the City Centre (Downtown Pickering): • A Civic Precinct acting as the downtown's cultural and institutional hub with destinations and distinct public realm treatment. • An extraordinary public realm formed through new public spaces that populate the downtown. A variety of small and large gathering places are within a five minute walk anywhere in the downtown. • A gateway at Kingston & Liverpool Road characterized by distinct buildings and public plazas at each of the four corners. • The Transit Hub at the heart of an enhanced transit system is a waiting area, meeting place and entry-way to the downtown. It is integrated with the rest of downtown through streets and pedestrian-ways, and surrounded by exceptional buildings. • The extension of Pickering Parkway west of Liverpool Road, connecting Downtown from east to west. PLN 11-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) Page 3 • Distinct tall buildings that line Highway 401 , signalling that Downtown is the core of Pickering to surrounding areas of the City. Enhanced connectivity is achieved by new bridges and street connections. • New destinations enhancing the range of activities, amenities and economic vitality of the downtown. 1.2 Official Plan Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan To implement the City Centre Vision and achieve the directions of the Provincial Growth Plan, Council adopted Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan, which was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on March 4, 2015. Amendment 26 added new policies and changed existing policies to the Pickering Official Plan to create a framework for redevelopment and intensification, and identified infrastructure improvements and transportation connections within and from the City Centre, in support of anticipated population and employment growth. To accommodate future growth, Amendment 26 introduced the following performance targets: the population and employment targets for the City Centre were increased to 13,500 residents and 13,500 jobs by 2031 ; the maximum permitted residential density in the City Centre was increased from 180 to 570 dwellings per net hectare; and, the maximum permitted Floor Space Index (FSI) in the City Centre was increased from 3.0 to 5.75 (FSI is the ratio of the total floor area of a building in relation to the site area). 1.3 Urban Design Guidelines To complement Amendment 26, Urban Design Guidelines were also crafted for the City Centre. These guidelines provide design direction for intensification, including: the orientation, massing and integration of buildings; the re-design of streets to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and motorists; and, the connection, design and use of public spaces. The design guidelines rest principally on two pillars: placemaking and sustainability. These pillars are intertwined and form part of one of the five corporate strategies of the City of Pickering namely "Sustainable Placemaking" which, in the context of the City Centre, can be described as a process to improve the long-term social, environmental, economic and cultural health of the City Centre. To ensure a consistent approach to plan implementation, the approval of the guidelines was undertaken in concert with the development of a new comprehensive zoning by-law for the City Centre. 1.4 Comprehensive Zoning By-law On January 9, 2017, Planning & Development Committee endorsed the draft City Centre Zoning By-law and authorized staff to finalize and forward the recommended Zoning By-law to Council for enactment at such time as the Krosno Creek Natural Heritage System Zone boundary has been agreed to by the City, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and the Downtown South Pickering Landowners Group. After further agency and stakeholder consultation, Council enacted the recommended zoning by-law and approved the recommended urban design guidelines on April 11, 2017. PLN 11-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) Page 4 The City Centre Zoning By-law includes: new zone categories; permits a broad range of uses; incorporates new development standards to regulate the size, location, massing and height of buildings; identifies minimum and maximum floor space indices; and, introduces new vehicle and bicycle parking standards. On May 10, 2017, OPB Reality Inc., the property managers for the Pickering Town Centre (PTC), appealed City Centre Zoning By-law 7553/17 to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to Section 34(19) of the Planning Act. OPB Realty Inc. has expressed concerns that the expectations for stormwater and replacement flood storage on PTC lands may negatively impact future development or redevelopment opportunities. 1.5 Proposed Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan Following the endorsement of a new City Centre Zoning By-law, concerns were expressed by some landowners that in certain instances a development proposal would meet the Floor Space Index (FSI) and height requirements of the zoning by-law, but would not meet the density requirements of the Pickering Official Plan. While FSI is defined in the Official Plan and further detailed in the zoning by-law, density is only defined in the Official Plan, and height is only defined in the zoning by-law. FSI and height are the two main determinants for defining the basic shape or form of buildings, whereas density measures the number of residential units that can be achieved within buildings. Secondary zoning requirements such as building setbacks, building step-backs, on-site parking and landscaping requirements, and urban design guidelines further assist in designing a development proposal that is befitting to a site and its context. FSI and height regulate the form and scale of development regardless of whether the use is residential, commercial, office or other permissible uses. As a result, City Staff initiated Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan to remove the density cap for the City Centre area (see text of Information Report 02-17, Attachment #2). The removal of the cap will provide further opportunities for intensification, allowing for a greater number of units to be achieved within the same building envelope, and will better enable the acquisition of land for community and public purposes. The removal of the cap will also allow developers within the City Centre more flexibility to provide a greater variety of residential unit sizes, while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure and market demand. 2. Comments received on Proposed Amendment 29 2.1 Comments from the February 27, 2017 Statutory Open House There were 14 people in attendance at the February 27, 2017 Open House. Questions for clarification were asked, and one anonymous submission was made at the Open House, which has been listed and addressed in the Agency and Public Comment Table in Appendix II to this report. PLN 11-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) Page 5 2.2 Comments from the March 6, 2017 Statutory Public Meeting One verbal submission was made in support of the proposed amendment at the March 7, 2017 Statutory Public Meeting. In addition to providing general clarification, members of the Planning & Development Committee also asked questions related to: the future transportation studies, and the need and timing for road improvements; the resolution of stormwater management issues related to Krosno Creek; and, the availability of affordable rental units. These matters are outside the scope of the proposed amendment, but will be addressed through subsequent stages of the development approval process, including the preparation and Council approval of Block Development Plans, Council's lifting of "(H)" Holding Provisions, and the site plan approval, or in the case of municipal infrastructure, through future environmental assessments. 2.3 Written and oral submissions received There were 12 written and oral submissions received on Proposed Amendment 29, inclusive of agency comments. Summaries of the written and oral submissions received from the agencies and members of the public and staff's response are contained in Appendix II. 2.4 Region of Durham comments Regional staff note that Proposed Amendment 29 is consistent with the policies of the Regional Official Plan and the Provincial Growth Plan and is exempt from Regional approval. Regional staff also indicated that the proposed amendment does not present any significant impacts on municipal services or the Regional transportation network, but did specify that further studies will be required when development applications are submitted to confirm servicing capacity and to identify measures to mitigate traffic. 3. Staff review of submissions 3.1 Staff have reviewed the submissions received and provided a response in the table contained in Appendix II to this report. No modifications to the proposed amendment are recommended. 4. Staff recommend that the Draft By-law to Adopt Recommended Official Plan Amendment 29 be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment Staff recommend that Council support the Recommended Amendment by passing the by-law to adopt Amendment 29, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 11-17. Appendices: Appendix I Draft By-law to adopt Recommended Amendment 27 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Table — Response to Agency and Public Comments Received on Proposed Official Plan Amendment 27 PLN 11-17 June 5, 2017 Subject: City Initiated Official Plan Amendment Application (OPA 17-001/P) Page 6 Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Text of Information Report 02-17 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: 7/Air 6. 4,-" Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP, AMCT Catherine Rose, MCIP. RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO JB:so Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Ci Council Tony Prevedel, P. Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix Ito Report No. PLN 11-17 By-law to Adopt Amendment 29 to the City of Pickering Official Plan The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. xxxxlxx Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 29 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 17-001/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may, by by-law, adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; And whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas on February 23, 2000 Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 29 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment 29 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this xxth day of xxxx, 2017. 40144,11, David Ryan, Mayor DietZer Debbie Shields, City Clerk Exhibit "A" to By-law Recommended Amendment 29 to the City of Pickering Official Plan Recommended Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 1 Purpose: The purpose of this Amendment is to delete the maximum residential density figure from the Pickering Official Plan for lands in the City Centre. Location: The Amendment applies to all lands within the City Centre. Basis: The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe designates Pickering's City Centre as an Urban Growth Centre, and stipulates that it will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. The removal of the maximum residential density of 570 dwellings per net hectare, will provide opportunities for greater residential intensification within the City Centre, allow development to respond efficiently to changing demands in residential unit size, and better enable the acquisition of lands for public purposes necessary to create complete communities through redevelopment. Amendment: The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: 1. Revising Table 6, Mixed Use Areas: Densities and Floor Areas by Subcategories, in Chapter Three — Land Use, so that it reads as follows: (Excerpt from Table 6) TABLE 6 Mixed Use Maximum and Minimum Maximum Gross Maximum Areas Net Residential Density Leasable Floorspace for Floorspace Index Subcategory (in dwellings per hectare) the Retailing of Goods (total building and Services floorspace divided (in square metres) by total lot area) City Centre over 80 and up to and up to and including over 0.75 and up to including-5-70 300,000 and including 5.75 Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment, except as revised by this amendment. Appendix II to Report No. PLN 11-17 Table : Responses to Comments Received from the Public and Agencies on Proposed Amendment 29 to the City of Pickering Official Plan >. 9 O 0) a (n co f N O O — c = -O a) C 3 = (./) 4_ � -c -0 '0- U a) 5o _c d) U O 0 > — >, C •C 92 L 0 Ln v) O a) L c o 3 o• c6 Y - a) - a) 'O �2 a) -a c N a) a) Q. ()) in L L U c c / 5 4- cocO ( a) 2" E (6 • O Q a- .c A Y O E ..--, n3 a) O O L c6 c co `�- — 0 H +--. U iii-._ C U " . t c 0) Q > ui�O N a) N a) •; 3 N ate-+ O C O (6 (6 O 0 w - EO N (6 C fn O (n f6 2 C O) c6 > -O (6 'O 0) a) a) c6 a-' a) -0 C 0 O a) a a) co C o C Q U a) c a) .C 73 0 L- _C C Y a —C CD N a) L C L a) 4 E .V f673 Q.�.., E • 1 a) C 0 ,,— c g _ � c>6 0 4 c E� y .2E0 > '7 c _C E3 0 aYV C O C. .c6 (6 a) �, C — O Y o 06 L- c6 a) .- EL d U C Q 45 Q- C6 (6 C a) >+ U L (6 rn— L C }, (6 E Q > 00 . V) -0 o Cr) a) C .v U a) OC U O U c O U) C C a) N c S. �) (a .c X C a) O � ,(/) O N _a 5 -0 •O co - -a = . 'C U Cl) N N Y 'E 2 U C O O 0 .> 0) U C Q mu 0 `cn +' O C Q _ , O C n- N .c 4- N O a) C 0 O 73O -oa) CLE co o ,_ = N 'O a) ) .c > N O � O) C O 'p o U E (6 a) -C a) CO 4 .i C11) N H 'v 3 n < 2 Q.a c6 E .S o .S ._ .- -oc6 cn •S H O 0 o .._ 0 a-. C • • • N E .a C a) E (6 -a a) in-0 Q (n c > 0 0 L E. m o c u) u, c c O) o `'c >, ` Y .= a) c6 E 00- Eo 0 0 O o °' 0 � E (' o a� -0 o c a) - I- > oa) co (a C CD E ' "5 c 73 2 vi C a) E L _c 0. L C a) i� (n /1, (6 L OE = o U 0 a) Q- a) .r a) LQ E Q- n C C} L a)/ x .9 c6 +-' a O , C V O_ N 0 (6 (6 o � � -0 4 Q- ca v0) 73 N 'C Y (6 = N N co- v u) a) O a) -pas ._ _ L c6 O L N OL t C •4--. V a) O (6 XX O c Q 1 O •c a) a Q0 W QO .S O +y+ • • • `_ C a) E E O C U o 41co- 0 a) cn to aa)i 0 2 0 H E co -- c ii 0 L O O aCO 2 V Ea) 0 c6 C > 0 0 2 a) 2 C 0 = U) co < 2a Lj 0 * N M _ I -o Cl) U) 2 5 & _ C.) -0 / o = } ± E J > Cl) o n E / -o £ 0 7 n I = o W ® 0_ 2 n —. e ± o / ¥ : / / _ s >, R n 0 % \ CN 0 � C C C as w L_ 0 o \ � . a) U 2 / 2 U@ 0 0 - % y £ �� \ @ E = 2 ± © 40 2 © 40 0 ® E / 0 E2 0 C 0 ) 0 � Q / � � a) 2 c 45 D C 0 2 / n o > I / ' 3 o J I E a 0) § ± O. 0E _ = y e \ i 0 .- 0 / � o C 0) = .R C $ J � � - E 0 2 / 0 a) 03 C U C 0 a ' @ ce C CO0) 0 0 - . co7:3 C ,_ 2 $ § n . n 0 -6 £ 0 \ — = C 2 _ / n 0 e E .R p o I .0 ca 3 2 / > e ( 0 2 0 0 I / as> \ \ m 2 2 i �� ± Ems _ § 2 I 0 L 2 ± > 05 ± 2 2 2 J § / •U .\ _c E \ Cii Ca = ' _ > , .- £ k0 0 12 g � I .e ' = I = q t \ o w 0 2 / 2 x ± -o w H O $ * 2 2 / ± c 4 @ E 7 _ . . . . o Ej 2 = -0- 0 « ._ ' k 7 \ / C 0 . 2 I ± o * �_ 0 a) \ \ U I 'o o \ / ® ° _c o MI F >3 0 % Ila) D Oo > C .0) 0 -0 ) . e = R CD E 0- / / 2 § ./ ,- ® E o- E I n o E \ C ° / ƒ o oE E 2 § a = / I e Et E 3 2 -® y 2 ® \ = m n e k E k U ± m I 73 = -0 0_ CO 2 § I �-0 R5 _ -0 0) '§ > 0 £ E .= cD > o_ 0 0 5 2 m 2 2 2 c _ a) E — - E 0 0 § 0 C I— § E 0 0 # C > o a) 1_ C > as o a) o o U U cL o E >, Q co -o a) a) o) 2 -c u) O a a) _ (ts c c "D a) _C �- CO (2 CO V) La-) '— •o 0) C -c a) C >, C C6 ,_ a •C O O (� _cm•oo0Eas a) c w ' o o 0 E 03 CL (n ..«� E L C U C o _ E > O a) >, u) }' O a) Cn � CO 4 U U 0 C) o C C O -p 4- U Cn C> L Cts C a) -0 a) - 0 to = L C Q co C >, > — L E a) CZ o Q o o C O C o 'O a) >, C >, C ) Y u) us +-- O Q- -0 N Y c a) () cts a) cu a) (a o 0 Q co 0 C L ... 4--� u) L V) _c a) C) a) as 0 O_ a) (ts m ,C (s a) Q) +� C +- C +� U E O C E v _o C o C o 0 4- U) ° U) Q a) a) ui (� „ ,- 5, E - E C Cl) 4— r c U a) E a) as c Q (� 2) a) `6 • (LS U C v- a) -— (n (SS C -a) C a) L7 .0 C Q) O E a) . — ()m Q) C Q) C `7U (_ Q � C .- o � ( cn > o � .C4- Ea) Ea) a c _c o C .> . c a) o o o a) a) c a) C a) N U o as o Q o- a) as 2 � I— U 1— U (/) C L(j CD (b • E .a C C) Cl) E a) a Q N _ _ _ > p O C 0 O C (4 (13 C C a) c� E ca "6 a) a5 C E _c a) oas - .4- 4- a) � � ECL (n a') � o � Ea) C .,_ — a-- o a) Cl) D 0 a) O -V) 'a .- a) cz 0 = D U C E a) L U a) L } a) N a) -0 O -c 0A ~- a) 0- a) (t5 -o (n 0 o L. O (n C F� 2 a) (� 7 x(13 `(5 Q O oo C (a O 0 a) o�S a) O •() O p a) -a p U C -a o_C2 a) a) O C6 > 73 C C > 0) C a) .-e=0 Q O O p L E L a) a) a) 7 0 (n (n L (1) -(7) �_ o � � -0 7:3 a) cLt a) Q) Ca) H L V > C ,_ C = ca. a) 0 (� w (SS CtS Q C a) a) ^, L_ X 0 L CD o o -0 E > a) n Q. I a) c m W U o)= U) U) C9 f� 00 • C C) E E 0 0 Q) ,L- 70 70 ca c H as O) C 0 Cm 0 ;, as 73 cn c 12 C (aa 2 0 ca a) ca ca > rn � E + -a) -e - U) ma) a) Lo N N o 0 4 C N D (a O a) 4-. Q p a) L +. U � Ccu � a) c � aic -0a) .= mc •- a) •3 ac) o ca E EE E 0) Uc E al E a? ficE0 ca E c � E m - � }' E c o p ° c '3 a a) N O ca �j ui c H U 2)moo, w i- a >, C C V o '> 0 o OO U T— COi) O a) c 0 O <n C O p O C. .r O .- C O C "C), p •- cn c Q. m a) a) Q U a) U .ort O a) � _ U a) N a) a) Ce C '.', ca C p a) al C C a) C p C "O ce a o c p 0 0 -0 .- ui Q c N � c •p) O c cn �, +r cn .r cn a) cn O C c a) A ca ca N m o c -0 a) ai a) c) m 0 a) m 0.73 a) m a) Cl ±2):p4=7 c p N c'a E73 ai v� <n 43- o .n ca c.) o_ , n c`a c c n 0c0 v '- o . -0o n 0 ' .%.; -0 CU a) La) cn a) _c = cnc a) a) ° 2a) a oc N CO Uca � CO > cnup) 3 up) co 1- 00 ca3o C • • • • • • a) E C E a) as iii U :'' Q a Cl C O c 4E' U) OE C a) vii o) a) V E -' E. — ca a) -C V (a 0 0 Y 0) O 0 ca a->'-0 C = fa -a o a) "'' '- N C N -7 a) •N a) a) N U OU L) O U c 6 oca a) -a (a L O p a) N V O (a +r 5 -a co U C a) `) — (an) E a) 0 •s, c O a O C a) Q _ O C 3 t U) E _ 0 C - as 0 O C -C 0 O 3 a) a) n a) U " N to a) } • Uocf) o-Cii a3 � V N C o am cnd V N � C CU c pO U C -02R4--; U nC .LyC c Ua) v-) u)y D o ca • Ecn a` a .- E y"i N co O _� cn L '- L -V u-. c •1W+ > a) O U O L C p a) (a Q- O a) p N C "O c 'a) (a U p a) O) a) ` (D O o L Q cn (a Q) 0 Y o0maa)) oEa) O. i- xE 'o `- N 0 ( 0o a) U cn cn 'a U) cad W ._ cn W - C ._ 'o > E 0_ o_ 4 • • • C a) E E O U — m hi c c m co c o 0 >, H E 7 a) c E 0 lqi ai ca) o c.) a co Y C 0) C- "1--' 0 C 0 :1--._C a) O (% U, 4— 0 U, a) c) El m a) 0 f/) C C 0 O 0- 0. 0. Cl) d re C 4c 2 U) .a C a) 0) N C a) E C O C ,. m a) c Q E E as aa)) a) o -C C - ca)_ c2a0uEOo E. E E -C .0 - Q-.� O -c - CO RSo '3c• c -00C NC � O u) oa) c � mc � � � � c) (T5 0 0 E � Oca (600 .r � (n (00) d C L O a, C -C > C U O V 2 0 y O 0 0 a) •- c 0 Q- =o E " o) OE0- a)0. N a) Q cE � u) Q._ o E w0 ca O 0 0 N a) f6 O C 73 a) (13 c19 C V C C .0 U i C N _ (B Cl) a) O c -0O _ Ea)QE E 0 0 cuE > caocCoY E -0 -0 O C .� O o o � 0 O a) C ,�>+ 0 0 •tea) � a E '6) Q- �. � -4 > o c o o a) E o • o o c c a) a) m o U,cu Z Z Q O_�. y— cv cn c cn -0 .. 72 • • • • c a) E E o >. U cn L o OO •0 E c� ~• d c c E U C o 0 (13 (.13 0 V CZ co Q C '0) > 1- U D N •,TTACINENT# 1 TO EPORi;; -PLN 11 - Cl - =l= al �" '„ `��iili niimumnum mmm�nu ,�_IIIIIIIIiorp. mi emu m i City Centre Boundary _� _ „ 1= == En ` _=«i.�:R• - ,- /_ i V. III;=_III=. •=uuu _—"_ _ =111 �;--.� •_��ll=dm� �= _ _=.=,-, II::IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� p pp pm;_ —;��„ �;-i - -- �� ��,�`�-IIII�111111111111111111: _ =p =p• _=_�_! Cr --�� _ = ip...i.ao =■", IC �_•.!rulnl►�= M� — —_-art �� =1111111MM" .... //llllll �1��� -■.1111111111111►�� �. • llllll ���11111111111/// ��� ■' IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII��ni RE. p�a_llia/ ' jI"fflL / 11111111111111■■IM.-- A • IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII —mm11 11 =-.per o ■°-�-- '� < III__ i oNRP°MINIP $:I6 - N� cs�■. ! _ %ow I��01111111 =111111111111IIIIIIIi= �=N ��nulilll � .�z� 1 1111111` ■■ . Q prii . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� 1111�M -z:�� \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\1 1�� _ u11111111j111111► mummin Mr. 11111 111 _ Erf== = 1111\\\\\\\ `�� ii= ..�� i �������IIU\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ _ _IIIIIIIIIIIIIII_ 11111 _a: _ =;'mm __' _ / PPP om OaO I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ill _mmR siIIIIIIIIIIlI1111I11 . r �ramEI-N. �e:aa• m_pp _�-_ \ ra��•'� ` � Iilllllllllll maim ...lam-- - S _ IIIc INNM • i ��I\111 ' -,��-"+:�•' %IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII '_ 01 0011 g: AlipiMi l P/II IIt - 11 Ia . 7-e / 111.111;041. NO- ..--- , 111 . f lik_ N�GNW Y Qp1 „.....„...„,...., .,......,,, ,„14 pigliii„olir -;- -p - .„... ......_„ illi 11: I,: ..e, si111iimi111111111111 nro ' rim= _hBAYLY STREET I 'r jV/III1I111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII\ %ms`s�►�l1111111 - _11111111111II II111IIIIII111111II 11��1r v -► — ■ 00110` . ■: 11111II11111111�_ 11111IIIIIIII 0111.1 i'•���1111111. t 0 Cdrel ■:�11111IIIIII 1 I III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ■ii,� =, I-r.:11.1\._�.A=\1111�;''�11111 PICKERING 'MIMS_. r_. _�I 1:10 000 N '5 City Development imp- mm w A'/!� _: I ■�i— m� 0 125 250 500 Metres �� e Department pr.,:i::. =pl I i i I i i i I s/v _�_i : -- :- p s Attachment 2 to Report No. PLN 11-17 Text of Information Report 02-17 ly 001 Information Report to P ICKE Ri NG Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 02-17 Date: March 6, 2017 From: Catherine Rose Chief Planner Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2017-001/P Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan City Initiated Proposed Revision to the Residential Density Cap in the Pickering City Centre 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information on a City initiated official plan amendment application. This report contains background information on the existing Official Plan and the purpose of the proposed amendment. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification, and identify any planning matters. This report is to be received, and no decision is to be made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for-consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a review of the comments received and revisions to the amendment where appropriate. 2. Background The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe designates Pickering's City Centre as an Urban Growth Centre, and stipulates that it will be planned to achieve, by 2031 or earlier, a minimum gross density of 200 residents and jobs combined per hectare. Building on this Growth Plan directive, the City retained consultants to prepare a planning and urban design study for the redevelopment and intensification of the City Centre. The final planning study culminated in a report entitled "Downtown Pickering, A Vision for Intensification and Framework for Investment", which was endorsed in principle by Council on July 8, 2013. This new City Centre Vision formed the basis for Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan, which was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on March 4, 2015. Among other matters, Amendment 26: increased the population and employment targets for the City Centre to 13,500 residents and 13,500 jobs by 2031; revised the maximum permitted net residential density in the City Centre from 180, to 570 dwellings per hectare; and, increased the maximum permitted Floor Space Index (FSI) in the City Centre from 3.0, to 5.75 (FSI is the ratio of the total floor area of a building in relation to the site area). The caps on residential density and FSI were set with the understanding that these maximums would not be achieved in all circumstances due to site constraints, zoning, and restrictions imposed on particular sites by adjacent land uses. Information Report No. 02-17 Page 2 On January 9, 2017, Planning & Development Committee endorsed the new City Centre Zoning By-law and Design Guidelines. To implement the provisions of the Official Plan, and the related Design Guidelines, the new by-law includes traditional provisions such as permitted uses, parking standards, and definitions, but also form-related provisions such as minimum and maximum building heights, minimum and maximum FSI, maximum area for a tower floorplate, and minimum building separation. The by-law uses FSI, but does not include provisions related to the minimum and maximum number of residential units per net hectare. FSI and height regulate the form and scale of development regardless of whether the use is residential, commercial, office or other permissible uses. However, as landowners continued to review the draft by-law, concerns were expressed by some landowners about the use of the residential density provisions in the Pickering Official Plan. Certain landowners were concerned that, in the future, staff would check the various site plans against the density provisions in the Official Plan and could determine that a proposal did not comply with permissible residential densities, yet the proposal would still meet the height and FSI provisions of the by-law. The issue is further complicated in that residential density is measured on a "net" basis (excluding lands for public roads, road widenings, parks, open space, and other land for community facilities) whereas FSI does not require the exclusion of such lands. Staff also note that the background work associated with the Vision Document for the City Centre assumed an average dwelling unit size of approximately 100 square metres. By today's standards, this is quite large. Developers, responding to trends to smaller unit sizes, would be able to achieve more residential units within a building of a given height and FSI. Recognizing that the Growth Plan objectives are to plan to achieve a gross density of minimum of 200 jobs and persons per hectare in Pickering's Urban Growth Centre, there is merit in reconsidering how the residential density provisions of the Official Plan are applied in the City Centre. Following discussion with the Chief Administrative Officer, staff was requested to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to provide additional flexibility in the allowable residential densities while maintaining the built form vision for the City Centre. Accordingly, staff initiated a formal Official Plan amendment process under the Planning Act to remove the residential density cap of 570 dwelling units per net hectare within the City Centre, and is releasing a draft amendment for comments. 3. What is being proposed? The proposed policy change to the Pickering Official Plan is identified in Appendix I: Proposed Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan. Information Report No. 02-17 Page 3 4. What notice was given? In addition to the standard departments and agencies, written notice of both the Open House and the Statutory Public Meeting was provided to all landowners inside the City Centre, and to landowners within 150 metres of the outer boundary of the City Centre. In addition, the notice was posted on the City's website, and an advertisement appeared in the local newspaper for two consecutive weeks on February 15 and February 22, 2017. 5. Comments Received to Date Manjit Binning (email) expressed concerns related to traffic congestion, the need to maintain green space, and a desire not to become like Toronto. Lisa Gaspar (telephone) expressed concerns related to the pressure new development will have on roads, parks and community services; in particular, expressed a concern related to the loss of ice rinks. Brooks Masterton (email) expressed concerns related to the impact increased densities will have on transportation, recreation, parking, schools, and support services. Keith Ward (email) sought clarification on the wording of the amendment and wanted to be added to the notification list. Clarification was provided, and Mr. Ward has been added to the notification list. 6. Planning Rationale The City's Official Plan and proposed City Centre By-law contain three key performance measures: Residential Density (the number of residential units in relation to the "net" residential land area); Floor Space Index or FSI (the ratio of the total floor area of a building, regardless of the use, in relation to the site area); and, the height of a building. FSI and height are the two main determinants for defining the basic shape or form of buildings, whereas density measures the number of residential units that can be achieved within buildings. Secondary zoning requirements such as building setbacks, building step-backs, on-site parking and landscaping requirements, and urban design guidelines further assist in designing a development proposal that is befitting to a site and its context. City Development staff have identified two potential means to allow further density without compromising the built form vision for the City Centre: changing the calculation of residential density from dwellings per "net" hectare to dwellings per "gross" hectare; or removing the cap for the maximum number of dwellings per hectare. Information Report No. 02-17 Page 4 There are various methods to calculate residential density, e.g., units per hectare, people per hectare, or the number of habitable bedrooms per hectare. Some methods use a "net" land area and some use a "gross" land area. The approach currently used by Pickering, is to measure residential density by the number of units per "net" hectare, treating all units the same, regardless of size. The calculation of "net" land area requires the exclusion of lands that will be required for public uses (such as roads, schools, park sites, or open space). City Development staff have undertaken a cursory review of best practices of other municipalities (see Attachment #1). The majority of municipalities use a net residential density definition, as opposed to a gross residential density definition. However, some municipalities are only using FSI and height within downtown environments. Some of the reasons for moving away from using residential density, and residential density caps include: • Using a single residential density measurement is limited, and does not reflect the complexity and the various dimensions of downtown districts. For example, higher residential density does not always equate to more people or higher buildings, because the number of persons per unit vary for different housing types (e.g., 1, 2, or 3 bedroom units); • Achieving a certain net residential density in the City Centre will not guarantee the desired design outcome. There are various performance standards (e.g., massing, height transition, building setbacks and step-backs, shadow impacts, spacing requirements, sunlight optimization, privacy, and street relation), which assist with creating the desirable urban design and quality of place in the City Centre; • Using a "net" residential density calculation will result in two parcels of the same size eligible to construct different "maximum" numbers of dwelling units, if one parcel has to convey land for public park, public road, road widenings, or land for other similar essential community services and facilities. By contrast, using a "gross" residential density calculation would result in both parcels being eligible to construct the same maximum number of dwelling units and still provide the land for essential community needs; • Measuring activity intensity instead of residential density, is more vital to the long term viability and sustainability of a downtown district (such as the City Centre) that will be undergoing a metamorphosis over time. Removing the density cap allows for a greater number of units to be achieved within the same building envelope, and allows developers within the City Centre more flexibility to provide a greater variety of residential unit sizes, while having consideration for matters such as housing affordability, tenure and market demand. Information Report No. 02-17 Page 5 Either option could address the inequity that arises between those property owners that are required to provide lands to public ownership for essential community services and facilities in the developing areas, and those property owners who do not need to provide such land. While both options could contribute to the desired result of providing further opportunities for intensification, removing the density cap within the City Centre simplifies the calculations to height and FSI. Density can still be calculated on a net basis as in the remainder of the municipality. The use of planning policy tools to create site specific exceptions, such as density bonusing and density transfer, would no longer be applicable or required within the City Centre. Although concerns may be raised with respect to the effects of increased population resulting from greater intensification, on municipal infrastructure and services, such impacts will be closely monitored through the development of individual block plans and the approval of plans of condominium and site plans. This will include, but not be limited to: traffic impact studies addressing necessary transportation improvements; parkland dedication and cash-in-lieu of parkland to address future park needs; and, servicing studies addressing the capacity of infrastructure. The City Development Department will submit a recommendation report after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 7. Procedural Information • 7.1 General • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 7.2 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority • the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest • at this time, the Region has not yet determined whether this official plan amendment application is exempt from Regional Approval Information Report No. 02-17 Page 6 Appendix Appendix I 'Proposed Amendment 29 to the Pickering Official Plan Attachment 1. Table 1: Best practices of other municipalities Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: (OrW11-7.\-A-- Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP, AMCT Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Chief Planner JB:so • Date of Report: February 15, 2017 Copy: Director, City Development & CBO